cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/53062611
[…]
Starting around March 27, Uyghur Times reviewed multiple videos from Urumqi and Kashgar showing city management workers removing Uyghur-language signs from shops, restaurants, supermarkets, and even private businesses. In many cases, only Chinese-language signage was left behind.
One widely circulated video on the Chinese version of TikTok shows the demolition of Uyghur-style architectural elements at a major transportation hub in Urumqi, known as Uchtash Qatnash Bikiti (also referred to as Sandongbi Transportation Station).
In the footage, a Uyghur man standing in front of the site expresses deep sorrow:
“Today we are witnessing the destruction of one of the most iconic cultural landmarks in Urumqi. It held our memories. For many of us, our journeys began here and ended here. Now, it is gone.”
[…]
Other videos show workers dismantling Uyghur-language signage across urban areas. One sign reads “ئۆي مۈلۈكچىلىك، ئىلىم سېتىم,” meaning “Real estate Sales & Transactions.” Another removed sign identifies a construction materials supplier. In the clip, a bystander can be heard lamenting:
“It is not over. One day, it will come back.”
Observers say the campaign reflects a broader effort to eliminate visible markers of Uyghur cultural and linguistic identity under the framework of the new law.
When the law was passed, experts warned that it would legitimize cultural destruction and forced assimilation. Uyghur activists also condemned the law.
[…]
I will, but first I’m gonna prove real quick that the US also doesn’t oppress minorities:
An Act
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Civil Rights Act of 1964”.
TITLE I–VOTING RIGHTS SEC. 101. Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), and as further amended by section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 90), is further amended as follows:
(a) Insert “1” after “(a)” in subsection (a) and add at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraphs:
"(2) No person acting under color of law shall–
"(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any Federal election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;
"(B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any Federal election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election; or
"© employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any Federal election unless (i) such test is administered to each individual and is conducted wholly in writing, and (ii) a certified copy of the test and of the answers given by the individual is furnished to him within twenty-five days of the submission of his request made within the period of time during which records and papers are required to be retained and preserved pursuant to title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1974–74e; 74 Stat. 88): Provided, however, That the Attorney General may enter into agreements with appropriate State or local authorities that preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests in accordance with the provisions of applicable State or local law, including such special provisions as are necessary in the preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests for persons who are blind or otherwise physically handicapped, meet the purposes of this subparagraph and constitute compliance therewith.
"(3) For purposes of this subsection–
"(A) the term ‘vote’ shall have the same meaning as in subsection (e) of this section;
“(B) the phrase ‘literacy test’ includes any test of the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter.”
(b) Insert immediately following the period at the end of the first sentence of subsection © the following new sentence: “If in any such proceeding literacy is a relevant fact there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in a public school in, or a private school accredited by, any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any Federal election.”
© Add the following subsection “(f)” and designate the present subsection “(f)” as subsection “(g)”: “(f) When used in subsection (a) or © of this section, the words ‘Federal election’ shall mean any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing or selecting any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives.”
(d) Add the following subsection “(h)”:
"(h) In any proceeding instituted by the United States in any district court of the United States under this section in which the Attorney General requests a finding of a pattern or practice of discrimination pursuant to subsection (e) of this section the Attorney General, at the time he files the complaint, or any defendant in the proceeding, within twenty days after service upon him of the complaint, may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the entire case. A copy of the request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief justice of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.
An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.
"In any proceeding brought under subsection © of this section to enforce subsection (b) of this section, or in the event neither the Attorney General nor any defendant files a request for a three-judge court in any proceeding authorized by this subsection, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or, in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.
“It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.”
TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
© The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or © punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.
SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.
(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.
© In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.
(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.
SEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.
SEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.
(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.
In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.
It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.
SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.
(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.
Love it. Now we’re talking! This law you posted, is NOT a law that is used to discriminate. In fact, in order to discriminate, US politicians are seeking to REPEAL this law. Curious isn’t it? In one example, we have a law that was recently passed to protect minorities by a political body while we are told they actually passed it to harm minorities. In the other example, we have a law that was passed decades ago to protect minorities by a political body that was actually trying to address a real harm to minorities and that law is effective enough that politicians are looking to repeal it so they can harm those minorities.
Do you see the difference here? Both in the history and the reporting?
Yeah phew good thing they haven’t repealed the CRA otherwise the US might start oppressing minorities.
You’ve completely missed their point. They’re saying that the words of the law are meaningless and not actual evidence. The Civil Rights Act also didn’t end racism, discrimination and cultural oppression in the US.
Who’s to say that the Chinese government actually enforces this as written?
On paper it says it promotes integration among the recognized ethnic groups, but some of the wording is much more dubious. For example, children won’t receive their education in their native language anymore; they must now learn Mandarin (which is the classic tactic to erode other languages, inspired directly from the west). There’s also text in there that may be used to justify breaking up certain ethnic/minority neighbourhoods.
Bilingual education is a far cry from what the West does. You’re making entirely false equivalencies. Yes. The law can be subverted. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, it was NOT passed as a lie but an aspiration, and then the racists in power worked to get around it and built up rhetoric for decades to get to the point where they would have the momentum to repeal it. There is no equivalent movement in China. This is a new law, built on the recognition that disunity and ethnic strife is BAD for the country. You have to identify a Chinese right wing reaction to this law before you can claim equivalency. You have to look for the political movement in China that is upset about the idea of ethnic diversity and co-existent and find their rhetoric saying “Thos dirty islamists believe in the devil and want to destroy our civilization and install Sharia Law!”
You will not find that in China.
The problem is that you imagine China has the same drive to dominate that the West does, but you can’t actually find evidence for it, so you deliberately latch on to any narrative that can make it seem like there’s an equivalence.
Where are the religious leaders demanding China return to the one true religion? Where are the politicians saying that non-Han people are savage, backwards, and have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and deal with their own “cultural underdevelopment” that keeps them trapped in poverty and violence? Where are the think tanks publishing research papers about Uyghur-on-Uyghur violence? Where are the politicians stoking ethnic division by claiming “those people” want to start a “new caliphate” and “bring us back to the middle ages”?
Paul Fucking Krugman said this shit about the leaders of Iran! The West is foundationally xenophobic, and all of their growth and strength is tightly integrated with their bigotry.
Meanwhile in China the last 40 years have been built on the recognition that, hey, China fucked up under Mao, specifically with regard to Han Chauvinism. They went through a whole political and social process of acknowledging that they had a bad approach to building a society, believing they knew best for everyone and forcing it on people, and they made structural changes to their government, their cultural narrative, their education, and their legal system to address it.
There is no equivalent in the West to this. The West still thinks they’re carrying out King Richard’s Crusades ffs.
I’m not missing the point. I assure you. I understand laws and enforcement are different. I understand that laws can be written and then undermined. I am painfully aware of it.
But you don’t see Chinese newspapers in 1964/65 writing articles that say “The Civil Rights Act / Voting Rights Act is a law designed to assimilate ethnic minorities into white supremacy and eradicate them entirely”, like we see here. You don’t see a right wing movement in China screaming about the poor and the browns and the islamists. You don’t see politicians running local or national narratives on the basis of fear of the other.
Just because you want to believe that any government would act the way your government has in the past (or the present, depending) doesn’t make it true.
It’s not bilingual education, it’s Mandarin only:
Article 15: The state is to fully promote the spread of the nation’s common language and script. Citizens’ learning and use of the nation’s common language and script must not be obstructed by any organization or individual.
Schools and other educational institutions are to use the nation’s common language and script as the basic language and script for education and teaching. The state is to promote preschool students’ learning of Mandarin, so that youth who have completed compulsory education have a basic understanding of the nation’s common language and script.
The CRA doesn’t include similar provisions that are being criticized in the new Chinese law.
China is not a democracy, the CPC doesn’t allow any other movements to scream about anything.
They don’t have to, it’s an election tactic used everywhere in the world but the CPC doesn’t really have to worry about elections.
You seem to be under the strange delusion that there’s zero racism, discrimination or xenophobia in China. If you want to believe that, fine, but it also tells me you never actually visited and properly spoke to the locals.
And you clearly have no concept of what actually happens in Chinese politics. There are absolutely factions in the CPC with different opinions on what should be done and why. There were, for a long time, Han Chauvinists and it was a major driving force of CPC domestic and foreign policy. There were debates within the party, factions espousing different positions, and they resolve them through intra-party elections. Those candidates debate publicly and privately. They write their positions down. They share them. The people understand them. There are 100M members of the party, which is more people than turn out for US elections. There is absolutely a culture of debate and discourse that you can tap into.
As for xenophobia in the population, of course there is. But when the CPC applied the one-child policy, do you know who their target was? Han Chinese. That’s right, the dominant culture was the most heavily restricted. Not the other way around. Go read about it.
Yes, the new law states clearly that Mandarin will be implemented everywhere. That’s specifically to establish literacy for the purposes of unity across ethnic lines. The law does NOT have any requirements that schools STOP educating in their ethnic language. There are other laws on the books that establish those programs as protected. This particular law reinforces those other laws by establishing that discrimination against existing ethnic practices is illegal for all levels of government and will be overseen and addressed by the CPC to ensure local governments aren’t discriminating against ethnic practices.
I love how you tell on the West, though. I never said there’s no xenophobia or racism. I said that the government policies and decision making process don’t have these as elements that we can clearly observe. Then you say of course not because China isn’t a democracy, which means you think that Democracy must include some form of xenophobic populism. Then you say that the people of China are also xenophobic and racist.
Connect the dots? 100M party members, mostly Han Chinese, with various factions (and 8 other parties mind you), and a population that has xenophobia and racism throughout BUT… Laws written to constrain the dominant ethnicity, laws written to protect ethnic minorities, multiple centuries of autonomous and peaceful coexistence with large ethnic groups, integration and respect for multiple languages, religions, and cultural practices that vary based on the population…
it’s almost like China has absolutely more people participating in elections, absolutely more political engagement, and has managed to not let the lowest and ugliest forms of popular opinion drive their foreign and domestic policy.
But you’re right. The US is way more democratic. That’s why we protect the right to free speech and free assembly of neo-nazis and the KKK. Because we’re a Democracy goddamnit.
That’s literally the requirement in the law. You have no idea what you’re talking about. There’s no point in discussing the law if you don’t even understand what it says.
Show the place in the law that says that. My reading of the law is the Mandarin is now both required and required to be the primary language, but Tibetan is still taught and still protected and required for government functions. The reason for this is that Mandarin is the primary language for business and commerce. For young Tibetans and those in rural areas, the inability to speak, read, and write in Mandarin acts as a significant barrier to employment, particularly for higher-paying or administrative jobs. Requiring that all schools thoroughly educate children in Mandarin is NOT equivalent to outlawing instruction in their native tongue.